Eric Lipton (6:05)

I've been writing about the Trump family for a decade now, and I've been watching the conflicts of interest that emerge from the mixing of their personal businesses with the governance of the United States. And at the Times, we're quite careful about the terms that we use. And what I'm seeing in this administration, without question, is conflicts of interest. These are not apparent conflicts. These are real conflicts. I'm seeing ethics violations. I'm seeing unprecedented kind of breaking of norms in terms of these financial conflicts. But when you use the word corruption, to me, you really need a quid pro quo, which is you need to take a gift, and then the action that comes as a result of that gift needs to be in response to that specific gift. And I think that, that there is the appearance of corruption and the governance is being corrupted. But whether or not President Trump is acting in a corrupt way, I see.

Jon Stewart (7:05)

People were upset that you were not being definitive enough about calling it corruption because you were using the more legal definition, which has been watered down, I guess, by the Supreme Court. Is that sort of where all this is coming from?

Eric Lipton (7:20)

I mean, I relate more to the terminology, like around a bribe. A bribe is something when you take money and you respond to that, that bribe offer with a direct, you know.

Jon Stewart (7:31)

With that cash, you got to go full. Menendez Right? You got to go full gold bars. I have gold bars in, sewn into my jacket.

Eric Lipton (7:37)

Yes.

Jon Stewart (7:38)

And I am going to be now giving Egypt a better, a better deal because of that.

Eric Lipton (7:44)

I think the governance has been corrupted through this process. As to whether or not President Trump is acting corruptly is. I'm just, I'm observing and waiting for additional evidence.

Jon Stewart (7:54)

Agnostic.

Eric Lipton (7:55)

I'm interested, Susan, in what you think. Maybe you disagree.

Jon Stewart (7:58)

Susan, talk to me. Talk to me. Susan. This word corruption.

Susan Glaser (8:01)

Look, let's stipulate on the front end here that corruption knows no party and no bounds. We are here in Washington, both Eric and I, and we've been around long enough to see Democrats and Republicans, of course, Menendez not the only gold bar. I remember There was a Congressman, Bill Jefferson, years ago, they found piles of cash in his.

Jon Stewart (8:20)

In his freezer.

Susan Glaser (8:21)

In his freezer. Right. So I wanna say that on the front end, however, I also wanna say that even for we journalists who are generally allergic and should use this word unprecedented, very, very sparingly, that this is a fair word, in my view, to use right now for what's happening. And the reason that I think, Eric is being cautious about the word corruption. It's good to be cautious. But what I would say is that that's what we used to have a Justice Department for. And the thing that I think is the particular tragedy of the moment is not only that Donald Trump and his family members are literally adding zeros to the amounts involved in any previous known examples, they're doing quite well. You know, they're adding a lot of zeros.

Jon Stewart (9:04)

There's no freezer big enough to put what they're getting into there.

Susan Glaser (9:08)

Can you put Air Force One in a freezer? No. But it's not only the scale and scope of the corruption that take it into a different realm, but the fact that they've systematically gone after weakening the rule of law that would go along with constraining our leaders from accepting this kind of money from. You know, it used to be a big deal to do something that had the appearance of potential impropriety or the appearance of confraction. I mean, this is what a lot of Washington, quote, unquote, accountability reporting was like when I got here as a kid, right out of College in the 1990s. Okay. You know, there was a whole Bill Clinton fundraising scandal. No controlling legal authority. Forget about that. Right. Okay. Now we've just exploded the campaign finance laws. We have, and I'm sure we'll talk about it. Crypto coin for the Trump family that's literally going into the pocket of the President of the United States.

Jon Stewart (10:04)

Right. The meme coin.

Susan Glaser (10:06)

For me, this issue of. I'm glad we started with this question of when is it corruption or not? Because if we stick to that legal definition, Eric, unfortunately, in a world where Donald Trump has appointed his former personal lawyer to be the Attorney General of the United States, who literally was a registered foreign lobbyist for the government of Qatar and has, according to you and your colleagues at the New York Times, personally signed off on illegal guidance allowing Donald Trump to accept a $400 million Boeing jet to be the new Air Force One from Gutter.

Jon Stewart (10:42)

Yes, in his defense, it is a very nice plane. Apparently, it is two bedrooms, nine bathrooms. It is. If this were being rented on the Upper west side, I think. I think people would throw down quite a bit for it. But let's talk about. So I find this to be a fascinating discussion because in the United States, there's sort of this idea, this fiction. I think in the same with separation of church and state, there is this wall, the separation of governance and business, but that separation with Trump does not exist. But let's roll back further than Pam Bondi and, you know, whatever the DOJ might be saying about this jet. And let's talk about what has set the ground for this, which I think is Citizens United. A, Right. All those campaign financing. B, when the Supreme Court said it has to be an explicit right. Quid pro quo, was that that case?

Eric Lipton (11:37)

Yeah. No.

Jon Stewart (11:38)

For the former governor of Virginia.

Eric Lipton (11:40)

Right. And was ultimately acquitted.

Jon Stewart (11:42)

And then the third leg of this chair is the decision that the president is immune from any of these kinds of corruption investigations as long as he is acting within the bounds of his, his presidential duties. Given those three tentposts, is there a world where even explicit quid pro quo can be investigated when it comes to the activities of the president? Haven't we disarmed our entire ethics infrastructure through the Supreme Court? I'm not even talking about. He's doing unprecedented things. Eric, I'll start with you.

Eric Lipton (12:26)

Yeah. It is a really important question. I mean, first of all, the president is exempt under law from the criminal conflict of interest law. It's a crime. And you could go to jail as a federal employee for taking an action that, that a particular action that impacts your family or, or yourself and your financial interest. And you could be charged by the Justice Department. If the Justice Department were investigating that, the president and the vice president are exempt from that. But so already, and this president has cited that frequently, I have no conflicts of interest. Legally, I can't. Right. But what the Supreme Court did last year, it opens a question as to whether or not the Justice Department could even charge the president with accepting a bribe. Because if it's an official act, there is an open question. There's a footnote in that decision which leaves it slightly ambiguous as to whether or not actually, in what the Supreme Court majority wrote, there's a footnote that leaves a bit unclear whether or not there's enough room still to charge a president with bribery.

Jon Stewart (13:29)

And how would you gather evidence if you're not allowed to get his. Everything's under executive privilege.

Eric Lipton (13:34)

But the Constitution does make clear, though the language in the Constitution does that impeachment, that one of the crimes and misdemeanors that you could be, that could justify impeachment. The word specifically bribery, is there in the Constitution as grounds for an impeachment proceeding.

Jon Stewart (13:55)

Well, isn't it even the emoluments clause isn't that. Doesn't that in and of itself justify not being able to take a giant plane?

Eric Lipton (14:04)

An emoluments clause could result in a civil suit against the President that would require the president to give back the emolument that he or she received from the foreign government. And it could also be the basis of potentially an impeachment proceeding, but it wouldn't be a criminal matter.

Jon Stewart (14:22)

Let that be a lesson. By the way, the kids out there never take an emolument. If any of your classmates, if anybody offers you an emolument, tell them constitutionally right? All right, quick break and then we shall be right back. Guys, I don't know if you guys are aware of this, but getting through the news is. Is, well, it. What's the word I'm looking for? It sucks. Terrible. Really hard to figure out. But I got to tell you about Ground News website and app dedicated to helping readers navigate today's headlines with and I these words. I don't know if you with critical thinking, media literacy Getting through the headlines with critical thinking. Think of it. Ground News pulls together thousands of news stories from around the world every day, each story organized with, you know, very clear visual breakdowns of what the political bias, the ownership, the reporting differences. It helps you better understand not just the story, what you're reading, but why you're seeing it presented in in the way that it is. And it's built around transparency. Ground News doesn't run ads. Doesn't run ads. Podcasts don't even do that. What are they thinking? They don't use algorithms to customize your news feed. How dare they not try and manipulate you. Their bias ratings come from the averages of three different independent organizations, and it gives you a more balanced and comprehensive view. When you're using Ground News, you can see how many outlets have covered a story, how the coverage is distributed across political spectrums. You can scroll through the headlines with the bias labels attached to. You don't have to leave the app. I know you don't want to leave the app, and you don't have to. You can even directly compare how different outlets report the same story. The Blind Spot feed highlights stories that are being underreported by either sides of the political spectrum. Any side. It gives you a broader, fuller view. All you got to do to Explore everything Ground News offers. Ground News.com Stewart subscribers get 40% off the Vantage plan, unlocking all the features. That's Ground News.com S.L. steart. When you subscribe, you are supporting an independent platform committed to making news more transparent and empowering readers to make informed decisions, which. Oh, those are the best kinds of decisions. Hey, everyone. John Stewart here. Do you guys get hungry? I know I do. And when I get hungry, I love to have a sandwich. Sandwiches, I don't know if you've had them. I talk to people and they're like macaroni and cheese. Yes, fine, you can eat that, too, in a bowl. But a bowl is not how certainly lunch should occur. So for me, the sandwich is the perfect choice. You can take a variety of different breads and a variety of different ingredients and combine them. I'm telling you, the options are limitless. So the next time you find yourselves hungry, try a sandwich. They're delicious. We are back.

Eric Lipton (17:25)

But the bottom line question that you ask is that over a series of things that have happened over the last decade, it has made these questions much harder. And it's also part of the reason that what's happening is a conflict of interest. It is unethical. It is unprecedented. It is corrupting the government. I agree with all those things. But whether or not it is legally he is acting corruptly, I think that has become a harder question to answer, but it almost doesn't matter. These terms are important and we have to be careful with the words we use, but it doesn't matter because what's happening is unethical and wrong, and it's just damaging to American history and to democracy. And we are committed, and Susan is as well. We're documenting this. The thing that I think really matters is as a reporter is that let's get the primary details, the primary documents, the proof, and let's bring that to the public. And that's what we've been doing.

Jon Stewart (18:15)

Transparency. It's the only thing you can do right.

Eric Lipton (18:17)

We are the only thing left of accountability. The justice department, the IGs have been fired.

Jon Stewart (18:22)

Oh, my God.

Eric Lipton (18:23)

The Office of Government Ethics, the head has been fired.

Jon Stewart (18:26)

Right.

Eric Lipton (18:26)

You know, so the speaker of the.

Jon Stewart (18:27)

House today, this was a great one today. The speaker of the House, I don't know if you saw this, Mike Johnson. So they asked him about these gifts that are coming to your point, Eric, of the unprecedented nature. And he said, this is nothing like what the Biden crime family did. Trump is transparent. And the reporter said, we don't know who these Meme coin people are, we don't have any information on that. They're just putting money directly in. And he goes, I don't know anything about that. And the reporter goes, isn't, isn't Congress the oversight body? And he just goes, we're good, right? Susan, talk about how that's changed. You were talking about since you've been there, you've seen the erosion of these barriers. How are you seeing that play out? Cuz it's definitely not just this administration.

Susan Glaser (19:12)

Oh no. I mean, this is the sort of the final death rattle of the post Nixon era, post Watergate reforms that were designed to protect the country in many ways and protect our political system from the kind of abuses that Richard Nixon envisioned. Because it wasn't just, by the way, his, you know, specific cover up of Watergate. There were a whole host of abuses of power that Richard Nixon.

Jon Stewart (19:38)

That's why Agnew went down. Right. Didn't Spiro Agnew.

Susan Glaser (19:40)

Well, that's right. The vice President. That was actually from corruption of a very old fashioned, you know, Menendez, like crying. He was literally getting bags of cash predating his, his time in the federal government as vice president.

Jon Stewart (19:52)

That's right. I believe Bebe Rebozo had a slush fund and they were all.

Susan Glaser (19:56)

That's right. Richard Nixon was seeking to weaponize the IRS against his political opponents. I. There was a whole array of abuses of power that will be very familiar to anybody who spent any time reading Eric's terrific coverage in the New York Times about the Trump family and its essential use of basically the unclear barriers between their personal financial interests, their personal political interests, and use of official government agencies and actions to benefit themselves in a whole host of ways, both personally, financially and politically. You know, that's what Donald Trump's 2019 impeachment was over. Was essentially seeking to take hundreds of millions of dollars in military and security assistance the United States Congress had authorized Ukraine. And to say, I'm not going to give that to you unless you undertake this personal political errand for me of investigating my political opponents. So this is Donald Trump's playbook. His MO and the scale and scope of it is frankly Richard Nixon's fever dream. I mean, the level of not only the dollar signs, but across such a wide array of fronts and the fact that Trump sort of does it almost in front of us, flaunting us, has served in a bizarre way to insulate him. But you're right, John, I think to underscore that Trump is the beneficiary of this erosion over time of these laws and institutions. And by the way, one of the most important of the post Watergate reforms was a level of campaign finance limits, disclosure. There was even a system of public financing that had previously collapsed for our presidential general election nominees. And the Supreme Court essentially dealt the final blow to, to those post Watergate campaign finance rules in its Citizens United thing. And actually last year when I went back and did a big piece for the New Yorker on the kind of Republican fundraising in this post Citizens United era, and looking at basically the final co opting of the Republican establishment on behalf of Donald Trump in the 2024 campaign, the amount of money that was flowing into Donald Trump's coffers into in that campaign, that should have been this incredible warning sign for democracy. And of course, we all know now that Elon Musk managed to spend at a minimum around $300 million essentially to promote Trump and other Republican candidates and causes last year. It's just an extraordinary amount. And I think it's the classic thing, the red lines were crossed before people even understood that they were red lines. And now we're living in a world where what really frightens me is, as Eric said, that most of the watchdogs are gone, most of the accountability that had been built in our system is gone. And even when journalists like Eric at the Times are doing this great reporting, you know, the public is. Even those people who don't like Trump, I fear, is supine, is overwhelmed, is unable to meaningfully process how serious a blow this is to our democracy. And actually what I'm worried about, I don't know if both of you think this as well. What I'm worried about right now is that we're actually seeing corruption being institutionalized into our executive branch and Congress refusing to operate as any kind of a check and balance in ways that will actually have long term ramifications even beyond the personal enrichment of Trump and his family.

Jon Stewart (23:40)

I agree wholeheartedly. And Eric, I'll get to you on this because to that point, Susan, what I would say is right now, the only check on any sort of corruption is partisanship, is ideological opposition. The Republicans were very clear about going after the Joe Biden crime family. They wanted to impeach on that. But even impeachment, I think, has shown itself to be a feckless check on whatever corruption, that the, the situation in Ukraine in terms of weapons shipments for investigations into a political opponent is as clear cut as you can possibly, let alone the January 6th insurrection as clear cut. An impeachment as it can be. And it. And it failed, basically, because at its heart, it's a political process. And if the political process is broken. But I'll go further than that. You know, Eric, I once asked Nancy Pelosi, she was on the show, and she was talking about, we got to get money out of politics. It corrupts people. And I said, well, you know, you raised $32 million for your PAC. And she said, that's different. And I said, well, why is that different? And she said, because it doesn't corrupt us. I said, well, you just said, money corrupts. Yes, them, but what about you? No. And even when Ed Martin, when he took over for the dnc, what did he say? We need these billionaires out. They're billionaires, not our billionaires. Our billionaires are good, their billionaires are bad. So the system, I fear, has surrendered. We've already surrendered. Now it's just a question of how bad is this going to get? Eric?

Eric Lipton (25:19)

Yeah, I mean, I think, unfortunately, campaign finance at this point, given Supreme Court actions, is sort of a lost cause. And I don't really see, unless you kind of completely remake the Supreme Court, how we're ever going back. And I mean, but what we're seeing is the personal enrichment of. With Trump. He is both effectively the chief regulator of securities and Exchange by appointing the head of the sec, and his family now runs one of the world's largest cryptocurrency stablecoin issuers that is regulated. So he is both the regulator and the regulated. And that's the threshold that we have crossed that really has no precedent. And that campaign finance and the corruption of government through influence and access that comes with campaign donations has been something we have written about for many years and tried to document, but we just have never seen something where the elected official is personally benefiting to the extent that Trump is, through his family. And that. And it just, you know, so, like, the whole campaign finance debate is important, but it's sort of like. It's, like, tangential to what's going on here, which is direct personal enrichment in a way. You know, the fact is that, like, President Trump will benefit from. There's this legislation pending in Congress called the Genius act that would for the first time recognize the issuance of stablecoins, which are a form of cryptocurrency, as legally part of the financial system in.

Jon Stewart (26:48)

The United States as a security or just as. Just as a.

Eric Lipton (26:52)

As a form of currency, basically, as an alternative form of currency, which you have a form of crypto that's worth a dollar consistently and it's backed up with Treasuries and it's constantly worth a dollar.

Jon Stewart (27:02)

FDIC insured, it's not insured, but it.

Eric Lipton (27:06)

Would be recognized by the government and it would be regulated by the government. But once that happens, whether it does create a regulatory structure and to some extent you think the industry doesn't want that, but what the industry recognizes is as soon as that exists, then banks and other financial institutions will begin to embrace stablecoins and they will really become almost a competitor of credit cards and, you know, and financial cash.

Jon Stewart (27:30)

Oh my God.

Eric Lipton (27:31)

And for the Trump family, they are the seventh largest stablecoin issuer in the United States now. And so he is urging Congress to act.

Jon Stewart (27:39)

Wait, they issue, you issue stablecoins? You don't. It doesn't have to be created through mining or anything. You just issue it.

Eric Lipton (27:46)

You issue it. And The Trump's got $2 billion worth of stablecoin deposits from the government of UAE a few weeks ago, just before Trump flew over there. And now overnight they became one of the world's largest issuers of stablecoins. And Trump is urging Congress to act on this legislation and he's going to sign it. But his family is already profiting and he is profiting enormously off of the same industry that he is giving birth to as the top regulator. It's like we've never seen anything like that. That is such a.

Jon Stewart (28:16)

Isn't he just exploiting. Don't we owe him to some extent a debt of gratitude? Is he not making explicit what is the operating system? Oftentimes we like to pretend it's not of the world which is a pay to play system where the rich and the powerful have an unusual back scratching relationship and access to each other. I'll give you an example. So here's the small bore example of that. Susan, you can talk to this. Congressional members serve on committees that regulate pharmaceuticals, other types of things. They can also trade stocks. And there are numerous examples of congressional leaders being in meetings where they learn information about what is going to happen to a certain product that is going to have profound impact on stocks and then making trades that play upon that information and nothing ever happens to them. And how is that different other than the scale? Isn't he just supersizing the corruption that we have allowed?

Susan Glaser (29:27)

You know, I mean, I take the point, but I think that you, you know, we're capable of, you know, holding multiple different levels of thoughts in our head and you know, the difference between the petty crook who keeps Cash stashed in his freezer, and the most powerful man in the world accepting billions of dollars in personal enrichment while at the same time negotiating major international arrangements. Is. Is. Is so fundamentally different in scale, scope, and character that it is, of course, a much larger, greater thing.

Jon Stewart (29:59)

I say scale and scope, but. But is it different in character?

Susan Glaser (30:03)

There are sins and there are sins.

Jon Stewart (30:04)

Is it different in. Is insider trading amongst congressional people really different in character?

Susan Glaser (30:10)

Yes, it is. By the way, it's interesting, I think insider trading among members, Congress, a good example of something that they may finally be doing something about right now. Which is. Which is something. But, you know, it's like handing out traffic tickets when the head of the city is a murderer. I mean, the scale of the actions that you're talking about are so vastly different. And I think Eric is making a point here that imagine essentially if Andrew Carnegie or John D. Rockefeller was the President of the United States, setting the rules by which he could have that railroad monopoly and, you know, in the. The end of the 19th century and, you know, disabling his competitors and, you know, rigging the system in every possible way and performing both functions all at once.

Jon Stewart (31:05)

All right, quick break, and then we shall be right back.

Susan Glaser (31:18)

We're back on the crypto thing. By the way, it's not just Donald Trump and his sons who are now in this business that the government is essentially going to determine the future of. At the same time, they're earning money from it. Their partners in this business are the sons of Steve Witkoff, Donald Trump's everything envoy, who is. No, that's literally true. And who is traveling the world, going from Gaza and Hamas to meeting with Putin all by himself without a translator to Iran. Witkoff and his two sons are the business partners of Donald Trump and his two sons. Howard Lutnick is a huge proponent and investor in the crypto industry. Last summer, I think one of the signal moments, very overlooked, although covered in the Times and the Journal and elsewhere, was when Donald Trump took time out of the campaign trail in 2024 and went to Nashville, Tennessee, for the annual National Crypto Conference. He was cheered like a hero by the crypto industry, and he made promises that he is now fulfilling to this industry to essentially help treat it like a currency and to give it the status that will enable them to become even more wealthy. And he followed that up in September, again in the middle of this campaign, by taking time out to announce that they were going to get into the crypto business with the Witkoffs and his sons and create this company called World Liberty Financial. There's a classic quote from Donald Trump because he used to call crypto a quote, scam. And then when he made this announcement In September of 2024, he said, well, you know, I don't really know what it is, but everybody's got to get into it, so we got to get in it.

Jon Stewart (33:08)

Everybody's in on it. Everybody says it's great. So I'm going to do it. Yeah, yeah. No, you're, you're, you're dead on. Right. But you brought up a really interesting point, Susan, which is you kind of reflected it back to imagine if Andrew Carnegie or any of these guys was also president. So there is a really unique situation here, you know, to Mike Johnson's point, which is, well, the Biden crime family, they're not business people. Trump is a business person, so why shouldn't he? Rather than corruption, isn't he just monetizing his brand? Isn't that how he would view it? How is that different from the Biden family? Which is what, consultants and lawyers? I don't know.

Eric Lipton (33:45)

I think you can answer that question by looking at the differences between the first term and the second term. And in the first term, the president and his family agreed to not do what they called new international deals. So they continued to run their real.

Jon Stewart (33:59)

Estate business to avoid the conflict.

Eric Lipton (34:01)

Right, right. And now we did all write about the Trump International Hotel in D.C. and how it became a den of lobbyists and foreign diplomats that were buying, you know, $50 martinis or, you know, $100 Trump seafood towers at the Benjamin Bar. And Mar A Lago, by the way.

Jon Stewart (34:18)

The crab was fantastic.

Eric Lipton (34:19)

Yeah. The Mar A Lago also became a magnet. And he tried to bring, like, the G7 or the G20, I forget which, to Trump Dirrell. But they were not, in fact, doing deals overseas, announcing new ones.

Jon Stewart (34:31)

Still small ball. Right.

Eric Lipton (34:32)

But now not only are they doing new international deals, but they're actually doing new international deals with foreign government entities. So, you know, UAE is putting $2 billion into the world. Liberty Financial, you know, in stablecoins. Qatar, just a couple weeks ago signed a deal to do a $5 billion real estate project that's going to have a Trump hotel. Oman has a project, it's leasing the land for another project that's going to have a Trump golf course.

Jon Stewart (35:00)

The Saudis gave 2 billion to Jared Kushner doing this, didn't they?

Eric Lipton (35:03)

And Serbia, at the site that NATO bombed during the Clinton administration to stop the Balkans war, is now turning that same Site over to Jared Kushner, where there's going to be a Trump Hotel. And Donald Trump Jr. Was in Serbia having dinner with the President of Serbia. And the president of Serbia was posted on Facebook, How I'm roasting a pig tonight to have dinner with the son of the President of the United States as he's trying to keep his job as president because there's huge protests in Serbia.

Jon Stewart (35:31)

Oh, dear Lord.

Eric Lipton (35:33)

And he's giving land to the family of the president. President to build the Trump International Hotel. So having that kind of interactions with foreign governments at the same time as you that you are directing foreign policy and making decisions. For example, should Saudi Arabia be able to get F35s? Should the United States authorize the sale of advanced AI chips to Saudi Arabia or to UAE, Qatar? And what role is it the military presence in Qatar and Serbia? Should the United States help Serbia's effort to get into the eu? I mean, these are all huge. And how are those choices influenced by the fact that money is flowing from those governments personally to the pockets of the President of the United States? That creates an appearance of corruption that really undermines the legitimacy of government in a way that for any person would be disturbing. And it's happening again and again and again in front of us at a scale that's totally. It's much worse than the first term.

Jon Stewart (36:31)

What you just said there, I thought was. Was really the crucial point, which is undermining the stability for those of us. And this. This part I think it's important to get into, because all these ideas of, well, they're going to benefit from this and they're going to benefit from that. It's all sort of amorphous. Right. So let's get into what can be the real ramifications of this. Those systems that don't have the institutional checks undergirding their financial situation or any of those other things are less stable. They are more. The governments that function in this way, much more autocratically, much more, you know, the kleptocracies, all those other things hollow out the civil institutions that hold countries together in difficult times. It's why you see those countries and systems collapse violently. Is that when we talk about the ramifications of this and we really want to get into, what are we risking? Is that something that comes to mind?

Susan Glaser (37:45)

You know, John, right now, the United States of America is the single largest source of global instability.

Jon Stewart (37:53)

That's bold.

Susan Glaser (37:53)

Yeah. I mean, there's no question about that. When a superpower goes rogue, you have an enormous crisis for the world. And the one element that we should add to Eric's already very daunting and distressing list of ways in which the commingling of Trump's personal business and America's foreign policy interests create a crisis is of course, Donald Trump's single handed upending of the world economy. And by imposing, quote, unquote, reciprocal tariffs that aren't reciprocal on essentially all of the world's major economies. And in particular, targeting America's allies as much, if not more so than most of her adversaries. And the reason this matters is because this is the ultimate vehicle for conflicts of interest, for ways in which the President of the United States personally is the decider on what happens to the fate of countries and companies. And that opens up corruption. Every lobbyist in the world is busy investing, you know, and getting other companies to invest in lobbyists who have direct connections to the Trump family here in Washington right now. The reason for that is that Donald Trump has fundamentally shifted the balance of power in our society to essentially, instead of a rule of law society, to essentially a personalist regime. So he has become the kind of, he's become the kind of instability that you're talking about.

Jon Stewart (39:23)

Right.

Susan Glaser (39:23)

You know, that was America's theory of the case in what we saw in the 1990s as kind of the democratizing world is like, you know, democracies don't go to war against each other. That this notion, call it the quaint Washington Consensus of the late Klitner, which was the notion of that integrating countries who had previously been outcasts into the world economic and political order, drawing China and Russia into the rule of law, to the web of institutions would lead to democratization, to further stability and to further peace in the world. It didn't work out that way. And so now we have a situation where, you know, a quarter century later, it's the United States that has gone rogue on the very institutions in the world that have actually secured and maintained our power. So, for example, Donald Trump is going after, he doesn't like the idea that the US Dollar is so strong, he wants to weaken the US Dollar, he's risking undermining the US Dollar as the global reserve currency. And why does that matter? Because that's one of the main reasons that we're all so rich and we enjoy this incredible lifestyle here in the world. When countries are making now a determination that Donald Trump is not just some crazy four year aberration in the world, that he might actually be a long term new direction for the United States, and therefore the world. They're making decisions in a way that I think they weren't. They were avoiding making in Trump's first term. That really have the kind of consequences. But, yeah, I don't think it's overstating it. Maybe you guys do, but in my view, we're the instability.

Jon Stewart (41:03)

No, I think changing it into a transaction. And I'll go further, Eric. Maybe one of the reasons why Trump has a bigger problem now with Canada and with the EU is that they still operate through this system of democratic checks and balances. It's a bit more bureaucratic. It is not one man, one man sitting in a room shaking a hand, going, I'll give you a jet and you'll give me this. It's not as transactional because it goes through the processes that are created by constitutional stability. But if you remove that, you really are knocking away. You're hollowing something out. That has worked for us for a very long time. Yes.

Eric Lipton (41:48)

Yeah. No, it's really interesting just because this nation, for decades now, has been the promoter of what's. It's called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. I mean, we were effectively punishing companies and governments in nations around the world if there ever was any type of a government contract that involved a payment to an executive abroad. Basically, the United States was trying to enforce its value system across the world for decades now in Africa and Europe. And Trump has basically announced that FCPA is, you know, it's this the lingo on DC that they're not really going to do Foreign Corrupt Practices act enforcement anymore.

Jon Stewart (42:31)

No. He said, basically, you can. If you can't bribe foreign leaders, you are going to put American businesses at a disadvantage, so we have to be able to bribe. I guess the question is, is he just saying, well, I'm going to operate in the world as it is, not in the world as we would like it to be.

Eric Lipton (42:51)

I mean, I think the United States was successful in a way. I mean, you know, there's still parts of, you know, particularly like, you know, Democratic Republic of Congo, which I've spent some time writing about, and where it's still overt. And companies, the American companies left DRC mining companies because they were so concerned about the corruption and being accused of it. But the United States to some extent, has succeeded in really discouraging that kind of corruption. And so when you say Europe and Canada and other nations are like, they're, you know, they're reacting like, how is this possible? That because the United States actually successfully created a norm that now Trump is exploding and it so I mean to some extent he's benefiting and not just.

Jon Stewart (43:34)

Exploding, suggesting that creating that norm made us suckers and that we are the big losers of the international order that we created.

Susan Glaser (43:45)

That is such an important point. Donald Trump sketches this American hellscape vision, which is fascinating that, you know, for.

Jon Stewart (43:53)

The guy who's shining city on fire, on a hill.

Susan Glaser (43:55)

Yeah, exactly. You know, the dumpster fire vision of America is what he's been selling to his base for, you know, essentially this whole almost decade that he's been in politics. And it's completely at odds with the notion if America was getting ripped off and was at a disadvantage, cuz we wouldn't pay bribes and everybody else would, then how come we were the world's largest, most successful economy? How come everybody from around the world wanted to come here? How come our regulatory norms used to be the leading norms for people around the world? Obviously since the Foreign Corrupt Practices act was passed, I believe in the late 70s or early 80s, it was kind of one of the last gasps of that post Watergate bout of reforms. The United States economy has only grown and grown and become more dominant and successful. Successful. And so it's really about making war on the idea of America as being a kind of a value based global superpower. And you know, in the past. Right. You know, you look at other superpowers, other empires, they, they were ethnic based or they were nationalist at core. And the United States was always about the notion of an idea. Now we didn't always live up to.

Jon Stewart (45:08)

It and even the spreading of it caused instability. I mean, you mentioned the past 20 years of war to spread this stable system that completely destabilized entire regions.

Susan Glaser (45:18)

Yeah. And by the way, that continues to fuel a lot of Donald Trump. Right. You can definitely continue to see him as a reaction against the excesses of his predecessors, foreign policy and activism in the world. In fact, just in his Mideast tour this week, you hear him complaining about neocons and military adventures. And I'm not going to lecture you. And he's responding as much to George W. Bush's Republican led invasion of Iraq as he is to any acts by Democratic predecessors. So you know, it's a reaction, it's a reactionary movement that Trump has led of a minority of Americans, by the way. You know, he won the popular vote. He came just short of a majority in the 2024 election. But it's really the core of MAGA is, is a minority of Americans that have passionately subscribed to Donald Trump's essentially rejectionist view. Somebody said to me, you know, Donald Trump wants to repeal the 20th century. Well, a lot of it came with all these rules and norms and laws.

Jon Stewart (46:22)

I mean, I think he goes by the great man theory, the, you know, like you say, the Vanderbilts, the, the Carnegie's, the great men that created something that wasn't stable though, and it collapsed and the Great Depression and we rebuilt something that had more stability. And I think we're undervaluing all those different institutions and checks and balances, as flawed as they may be, for holding the world somewhat together financially at least over this time. Would that be fair?

Eric Lipton (46:55)

Yeah, I mean, I think that if the United States is saying that it is okay to be completely transactional and to be accepting multi billion dollar payments from foreign governments as you're making critical foreign policy decisions, it just opens up the world to a kind of a family oligarchical global governance that isn't transparent, that doesn't have any accountability, that is profiting a very, very thin. It's like Turkey's government or the kind of where you're both the financial leaders and the government leaders. And, and it just. The United States worked so hard for so many decades to create a world order where that was not, you know, we were trying to move beyond that. And it's, the consequences of this could last a really long time if the one nation that just imposed this new value system globally says, okay, we're done with that, we don't really agree and we're gonna start taking payments and making decisions. So yeah, it's potentially enormously consequential to the whole world order, honestly.

Jon Stewart (48:06)

Unfortunately, his comfort in this trip to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE is obvious. His comfort in a system of royalty. He looks so much happier there than he ever does here. You know, the only moment that I saw that that felt like the Donald Trump that we see in the United States was I think somebody from ABC News asked him about the plane and he went, that's an embarrassing question. But mostly, man, he's in his happy place. Monarchy, I think, is his happy place. I think in some respects is America this constitutional republic that has survived 250 years and built itself up over myriad difficulties and all these, the tumult of world wars and everything else. Are we now just a subsidiary of the Trump Organization?

Susan Glaser (49:07)

Certainly in the Middle east he is in his preferred aesthetic. There is enough gold everywhere to satisfy him. But I think you're right, he essentially does not subscribe to the basic principles in Our Constitution. And in fact, he was directly asked about this in a television interview a couple weeks ago and Meet the Press Kristen Welker. And she said, aren't you supposed to uphold the Constitution? He paused and he literally said, I don't know.

Jon Stewart (49:39)

Right? He said, I'm not a lawyer. I mean, they were talking specifically, I think, about due process for these immigration cases. And he said, I'm not a lawyer. I think what he's shrewder than that. I think what he is doing is doctor shopping lawyers. If a lawyer says, well, this is the Constitution, he goes, get rid of that lawyer and get me a lawyer who'll come in here and tell me you don't have to do due process.

Susan Glaser (50:05)

I think you're right. That, again, this was a key shift from Trump's first term to Trump's second term is understanding, especially in the key positions like Attorney General, like White House counsel, you want to have lawyers who are going to give you what you want. And so he's taken the extraordinary step of appointing multiple of his personal lawyers, by the way. So it's not just Pam Bondi Todd Blanche, who's the Deputy Attorney General now, also acting Librarian of Congress because they fired the Librarian of Congress.

Jon Stewart (50:39)

She was making inappropriate books available to children. And you're like, you can't just. That's not what's happening at the library.

Susan Glaser (50:45)

No, that is not what's happening at the library.

Jon Stewart (50:46)

What are you talking about?

Susan Glaser (50:49)

It's the personalization of power, which is so fundamentally at odds with and incompatible with a system of constitutional checks and balances. That's what Trump doesn't subscribe to. This goes all the way back to his first term, by the way. He said, you know, I have the power to do anything I want. I'm the only one that matters in our system. You know, he. Exactly. He's long betrayed sort of a complete. Not just ignorance for the Constitution, but, you know, a sort of rejection of its base of principles. So he goes to the Middle East. He's surrounded by emirs and kings. He's greeted with monarchical reverence. This is what he wants to be. This is. This is who he is.

Jon Stewart (51:31)

All right, quick break, and then we shall be right back.

Sponsor Announcer (51:40)

This episode is brought to you by Selectquote. Life insurance can have a huge impact on our family's future. With Selectquote, getting covered with the right policy for you is simple and affordable. Selectquote's licensed insurance agents will tailor your experience to find a life insurance policy for your needs in as little as as 15 minutes. And selectquote partners with carriers that provide policies for many conditions. Selectquote. They shop, you save. Go to selectquote.com Spotify Pod today to get started.

Jon Stewart (52:14)

We're back.

Susan Glaser (52:15)

It's not an accident that since he stepped on the world stage, it's our allies, our Democratic allies he's consistently attacked, and it's our adversaries that he's praised. And just a point. It's not about lecturing, by the way. Human rights is not some abstract construct. Okay? Saudi Arabia, it's not just that they took a bone saw to a critic of theirs, Jamal Khashoggi, who was a columnist for the Washington Post. This is one of the most unfree societies on the planet, okay? This is a place where women don't have basic rights granted to others. In the west, centuries ago, China. It's not just that Donald Trump wants to treat as an equal with Xi Jinping. It's that he's been perfectly fine at times in his first term, he seemed to even, you know, wave away or to justify China's human rights crackdown on the Uyghurs, putting a million people in camps. Not a big deal to Donald Trump.

Jon Stewart (53:13)

Well, he says always, what are we so good? Are we so nice?

Susan Glaser (53:18)

Right?

Jon Stewart (53:18)

And in some respects, you know, look, we have oftentimes, as you said, failed to live up to those higher ideals. But I think this goes beyond the types of higher ideals of personal freedoms and treating, you know, with equality and respect. This is a whole other thing that, you know, you can back off of personal criticism. We do business with terrible regimes all the time, and, and, and they do business with us. But this is very different in that we're throwing away the system for the writ of one man. That's the part that. And Eric, I'll ask you, once you throw that away, do you know of a situation where people have been able to get it back once you go to a transactional strongman theory of he makes the decisions, I don't know how.

Eric Lipton (54:14)

You claw that back unless he gets called on it and challenged, particularly by his own party. I was up on Capitol Hill last week.

Jon Stewart (54:23)

Yeah, good luck with that.

Eric Lipton (54:24)

I was on the Senate side, and I spent my entire day, I spent like 10 hours right, where the senators walked out of the chambers. I was focused almost entirely on Republicans, and I ended up speaking to over 25 US senators in the course of a day. I just, you know, spent the whole day there as soon as they were walking out and pestering them. And I only found two I was asking each one of them about the Trump meme coin. And, and is it, you know, that he's selling access to a dinner with. With. For 220 buyers of his meme coin. Whoever spends the most money on his Meme coin, they can have dinner with him, and 25 of them can have a VIP reception, and 25 of them will get a White House tour. And, and so, you know, was that, Is that acceptable to you? I was asking the US Senators this, and there was only two of them that were willing to give any. Most of them gave the answer. I don't know enough about it. You know, the Republican or I don't do. I don't do walk and talks. That was.

Jon Stewart (55:24)

I don't do walk and talks, but I will never sit down with you.

Eric Lipton (55:27)

Right. Yeah. And, yeah, so I think that what's the lasting implication of this? I mean, I think it really is going to depend upon a kind of a, you know, a rejection of this approach. And if that doesn't happen, then maybe it is normalized. But so far, I mean, the Qatar, you know, 747, you're hearing resistance from Republicans in the Senate in particular. And if it really does start to go forward, there could be a significant backlash there. Each step that seems more outrageous, there's certain hints of maybe he's gone too far. And so to answer your question, how normalized this becomes, it really depends upon if it becomes normal. And if, as an American public, we begin to accept it. And as Susan says, one of the challenges that we face as reporters is that even when we write these stories and we try to make sure that they're understandable with plain language and that they're distinct, I don't sense that they're resonating as much. I mean, the American public is sort of like, well, there's nothing we can do about it. This is, you know, and it just, I don't feel like the public is as engaged or as outraged by some of the things that are happening.

Jon Stewart (56:39)

Right.

Eric Lipton (56:40)

And that's also part of the normalization. So if both the Republicans in Congress and the American public is just gonna sort of let this become normal, then it does become normal.

Jon Stewart (56:49)

Well, some of that, I think, is because, you know, the competing vision that they're up against. First of all, it's amazing how crazy shit has to get for even a couple of Republicans to go. Yeah, I might have to look into that like it's bananas to me how far it goes. And it just shows how fearful they are for their own political lives over that. You've seen people excommunicated just for speaking out against that. But the other side of it is, you know, the corruption of it just gets embedded into it. And with no powerful alternative. I mean, for God's sakes, on the Democratic side, you've got Chuck Schumer going, I'm going to send a strongly worded letter with eight pretty hard questions. And you'll see. Now, maybe it's because we're in an unusual situation of they control the Senate, they control the House, they control the executive, they mostly control the Supreme Court. Maybe if that shifts, some of this begins to get adjudicated in a different way, do you think, Susan?

Susan Glaser (57:56)

Yeah, I mean, the fear is that an election is a long time away, first of all. Second of all, Democrats have a much harder road ahead to actually win back control of the Senate. So that seems more unlikely. The House is much more in reach in the midterm elections. But it's not just about the partisan advantage. Right. The system is being changed right now in ways some of which will be quite hard to undo. So that's first of all, second of all, I do think that the drama of Republicans was the story of the first term and Trump won that battle. That was a hostile takeover, as he and his son in law, Jared Kushner put it, in the first term. And they succeeded in that hostile takeover. And now you've essentially got Lisa Murkowski and a fully Trumpified GOP Senate. So I'm not wasting a lot of energy or breath thinking that Republicans are going to do anything other than the most mealy mouth of statements. In fact, Mike Johnson, you referenced him earlier, he also, I think, came out and said, oh, the plane, never mind. Even though that emoluments clause in the Constitution specifically says it would require congressional approval for some kind of massive gift from a foreign government.

Jon Stewart (59:12)

But don't you think they would regain their oversight immediately if a Democratic president was there? In other words, will this just be it's sort of in the way they look at the debt ceiling. Like if it's a Republican. Oh yeah, no, we're going to lift the debt ceiling and everybody's going to do it. And then a Democrat comes into office and say, aren't we going to be responsible here? Let's do that. Is there a chance that we once again become a rules based, responsible country as long as the Democrats in charge of it, that this is a Trump phenomenon, not a permanent change in autocratic rule?

Susan Glaser (59:51)

Well, remember that Democrats and Republican presidents have participated in the creeping imperial presidency right now, Republicans definitely subscribe to much broader, more sweeping vision of executive authority. But most presidents want to have more authority, not left. And the institutional shifts, not just in foreign policy, but broadly speaking, toward the presidency, there are a long term trend that have happened under Democrats and Republicans alike. So I think you would see some reorientation where Democrats to regain control of one or all of the branches of government. But I think that it's really hard to see a meaningful way where this is just going to be wiped away, given that one of our two major political parties has become completely all right with a series of things that just don't check the box for basic democracy anymore. And that's the part that is a long term trend, especially because we're in so much more of a politically polarized system. It is basically a fully partisan system. Now the idea of a nonpartisan civil service Trump is blowing up. The idea that there's institutional imperatives for Congress rather than just partisan imperatives, you know, that's all, I think, disappearing very quickly.

Jon Stewart (61:11)

Do you see that, Eric, in any way being a corrective once the, the cult of Trump is gone?

Eric Lipton (61:16)

No, I think that the partisanship has really undermined accountability both, you know, both for it makes it hard to have accountability when all of these investigations, whether led by Democrats or Republicans, that the other side is immediately dismissing them as, you know, witch hunts that are politically driven. And the Congress used to be made up of Democrats and Republicans, more so at least. I mean, like a Frank Wolf as a Republican that I can remember, or Tom Davis is a Republican. I mean, these were, you know, the.

Jon Stewart (61:46)

Conservatives, but partisans, but not ideologues.

Eric Lipton (61:48)

They were value based Republicans. Even Orrin Hatch was a value based Republican. And you know, Chuck Grassley is, you know, a value based Republican, you know, to some extent. And you know, now it's just all investigations are so partisan and even the way that the public reacts to them is so dismissive, depending on which side you're on, that it empowers the executive, the president, to just ignore them and to say, oh, this is just political nonsense. And I think that that feeds into this pursuit of greater executive power and ignorance of red lines. And I think it's unfortunate. And I think social media is also a factor in this where the tribes are feeding each other through tunnels of information that just backs up their favored politician. So I think all of this is becoming more normalized in a way that is unfortunate and potentially long lasting. But we'll see how it plays out. First of all we've got to get through the Trump years and we're just going to continue. We're going to continue, which by the.

Jon Stewart (62:57)

Way, may continue until we don't even know when it's going to end.

Eric Lipton (63:03)

Right.

Jon Stewart (63:04)

And by the way, the more power that the family amasses. Look, dynastic families in American politics are not abnormal. And the more power and influence that they amass, the more likely a dynastic influence emerges through there. I don't think that's any question. I think this is going to be with us depending for a very, very long time. And I will end with this. The fear for me is always the stability of these societies demands the consent of the governed. And if you don't have it, things like martial law get declared or they pull all kinds of emergency powers and crack down on certain things. And it creates the volatile political cycles that you see in countries that don't have the, the, the fealty not to a man, but to a constitution. And, and that's my fear for the cycle that we're heading into. I'm looking 70 years down the line, not just five. Would you guys comment on that?

Eric Lipton (64:12)

Yeah, I mean, rule of law, it's just, you know, the Republicans and the Democrats love to use that term, but the rule of law is becoming less real and less apparent in society today. And that's, I mean, our country has really been held up by that norm for centuries now, and it's becoming less and less apparent. And that's really problematic. But Susan, what are your thoughts?

Jon Stewart (64:37)

Last word, Susan, you got this. Sum it up, bring us home.

Susan Glaser (64:41)

Susan, rule of law, you'll miss it when it's gone.

Jon Stewart (64:46)

That's the bumper sticker you never see at the rest area on the Jersey Turnpike. Thank you both very much, man. Very enlightening conversation. Very much appreciate it. Susan Glaser, staff writer at the New Yorker and co author of the Divider Trump and The White House 2017, 2021, and Eric Lipton, who is an investigative reporter in the Washington bureau of the New York Times, thank you both so much for enlightening us during this time. Foreign so dark. I didn't want, I didn't want it to, to end with, we are entering an 80 year era of darkness and despair by which the rule of law shall be punished.

Podcast Host (65:32)

You thought a conversation about Trump's corruption would end on a glass half full moment?

Jon Stewart (65:37)

I don't know. I thought maybe they had some key to this. I kept trying to throw in there, like, what about when the Congress changes Hey, didn't we. What about insider trading? They're like, you don't understand, motherfucker, how deep this goes. You don't get the dis. Is that what you guys were thinking?

Podcast Host (65:54)

I mean, I was kind of focusing on. You said it a few times. I think about how crazy it is that Trump is just like, so comfortable on this trip. And of course he is, because he's making lots of money. But I just cannot imagine being in the same room as MBS and doing what he did, which was fall asleep.

Podcast Guest (66:11)

Hey, listen, man, gotta keep one eye open.

Podcast Guest (66:13)

Nap time.

Jon Stewart (66:14)

Listen, man. Yeah, they're not. Listen, that's not. That's not where they're taking the chainsaw, that's for sure. And you know, listen, you guys know when you fly east, much harder on the jet lag.

Podcast Guest (66:26)

Absolutely.

Jon Stewart (66:28)

And listen, I loved Susan's. Sort of the scope of her knowledge I thought was really interesting.

Podcast Guest (66:35)

And I also, I mean, I found the conversation just around the use of the word corruption that you guys started with very interesting. Because, yes, the Supreme Court changed what's considered to be bribery and corruption in government, but the Supreme Court is corrupt. Like, they accept millions of dollars in gifts and have made it easy for themselves to do that.

Jon Stewart (66:56)

That's a great point.

Podcast Guest (66:57)

So at what point do we stop using their definitions and start using the definition that you're just using your eyes and ears to accurately describe a situation?

Jon Stewart (67:07)

That. That's. That's a fabulous point. And I also think anytime you get in on the idea that corruption is purely defined in the legal arena, you'll lose sight of what real corruption is. It's just corruption, to me, is the erosion of those things that hold something up with integrity. And the minute you erode that, whether it's the legal definition of it or not, it is certainly corrupting of the tent post that we kind of relied on.

Podcast Guest (67:35)

If you want to quo at this point, like, you're going to have to pay up.

Jon Stewart (67:38)

Oh, we're getting the queens.

Podcast Guest (67:40)

But I don't know, about $1 million to the inaugural fund does not get you a quo.

Jon Stewart (67:45)

Yeah. And also the idea like, so Cutter, they're going to give him a $400 million jet just because. Just because.

Podcast Guest (67:51)

Okay, they're just cool like that.

Jon Stewart (67:53)

Yeah, they're cool like that.

Podcast Guest (67:55)

Yeah. How about Susan dropping bars on rule of law bars? I was like, okay, Susan.

Jon Stewart (68:01)

And by the way, gifts are corrupt. Like, why do you think grandparents lavish grandkids with, like, that's not like, oh, I gave you a toy plane because I Am buying your love.

Podcast Guest (68:12)

I give my dog so many treats.

Jon Stewart (68:14)

Right.

Podcast Guest (68:15)

This is how I became the favorite.

Podcast Host (68:18)

Also the proving. I mean, I can't imagine trying to parse through all of the companies and all of the shady movements to prove.

Jon Stewart (68:26)

You'Re not allowed access to the communications. Now the Supreme Court has made it so you don't have it. You can't have access to the communications. You can't prove anything.

Podcast Host (68:35)

Yeah.

Jon Stewart (68:36)

If the president is involved and do.

Podcast Guest (68:37)

You think, like, if he was just doing one of these things, it would be easier to indict him on like, both literally and in the court of public opinion? Because isn't that what like the Biden crime family was, was? It was just one thing that everybody could sort of focus on.

Jon Stewart (68:52)

Look at how long it takes to investigate. Like even just Hunter Biden, the dude had like a laptop with images of him like naked holding a gun. And like that was a three year investigation. Like imagine if you can't get access.

Podcast Host (69:04)

To anything and it's crazy. Like you just had an hour long conversation. You didn't touch on the media. What about all of the money he's making there? Like, it really is endless.

Jon Stewart (69:13)

Oh yeah, True Social. No.

Podcast Guest (69:14)

$40 million for a documentary.

Jon Stewart (69:16)

I'll get, get him back on the line. I want, I want to ask some more now. I feel terrible. I've missed all these things.

Podcast Host (69:21)

No, there's not enough time.

Podcast Guest (69:23)

I think whole nother episode.

Jon Stewart (69:24)

Yeah. What about the listeners? What do they want to know this week?

Podcast Guest (69:27)

All right, we got a couple for you this week. All right, what do we got nowadays? What's the point of playing by the rules?

Jon Stewart (69:34)

I don't know anymore. Because the system requires. Yeah, I don't know. It's a great. Like I remember in the old days, like if the president can get a blow job from an intern, what's keeping the earth on its axis? Like we're, we're so far beyond. I, I think that's really where you get down to. Is he exploiting the system that we've all been operating in but with rose colored glasses on and didn't recognize? Like, yeah, money talks, bullshit walks. And that's kind of how it is. And this dude's just ripped the band aid off and said, look at yourselves. Like he's forcing us to view how this whole thing really works. Rules are for suckers. That's what I'm saying, kid. What's the other one?

Podcast Guest (70:29)

If you could only choose one, would you advance or destroy AI?

Jon Stewart (70:34)

Wait, Well, I can only choose one.

Podcast Guest (70:36)

That's Correct.

Jon Stewart (70:37)

No, but that's.

Podcast Guest (70:39)

No, you can't keep in mind the AI is listening.

Jon Stewart (70:41)

Oh, hypothesis question. It's like, if. If. And butts are candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas. Like, no, it doesn't work that way. I refuse to answer your hypothetical on there. It's like saying, like, you know, if we had never advanced, you know, physics well, then there wouldn't have been an atomic bomb. Like, you just can't work that way. What I would choose to advance is humanity's understanding of not having to do everything that they can do, that you don't always have to be in the meeting and go, hey, should we reanimate the virus from 1919 that wiped out all those people? And, like, somebody in the office should be like, I don't know about rean. Is there something else we. Is there some way we could learn about it without unleashing it again? Is that something we could do? No. Progress requires providence and caution. And so you have to advance it because it's going to anyway. There's an inevitability to it. But you also have to advance our ability to understand how to mitigate. It's like, you know, we've all talked about global warming like this all the time. I'm like, look, I don't care how many cop conferences they do. I don't care how many times you tell people, what if you just got a smaller car? Like, that's not. Somehow we're going to have to figure out a way to mitigate. Like, somebody's going to have to clean this up if they're relying on humans to stop being humans. And that's. I feel the same way about AI and everything else. This is the darkest episode we've done.

Podcast Host (72:13)

And on that note, but it's like.

Jon Stewart (72:16)

Saying, like, the wheel, would you go forward with it? And you're like, yes, but that means that there will be, you know, trucks that have missiles on the back of them. Like, yeah, every. It's yin and yang, baby. Light and dark. We gotta manage it. Gotta manage the shadows.

Podcast Guest (72:33)

Hell yeah.

Podcast Guest (72:33)

Speaking of bars.

Jon Stewart (72:35)

All right, how are the ways that they get ahold of us?

Podcast Guest (72:37)

Twitter. We are weeklyShow. Pod, Instagram threads. TikTok BlueSky. We are weekly show podcast. And you can, like, subscribe and comment on our YouTube channel, the weekly show with Jon Stewart.

Jon Stewart (72:49)

Thank you once again, guys. Fabulous. And thank you for the conversation after that. I thought that was very, very thoughtful of you guys. Lead producer Lauren Walker, producer Brittany Mametovic, video editor and engineer Robert Tolo Audio editor and engineer Nicole Boyce, researcher and associate producer Jillian Spear. And our executive producers, Chris McShane, Katie Gray. Come on, people. Stand. Stand in the light.

Podcast Host (73:12)

Oh.

Jon Stewart (73:13)

All right, we'll see you guys next time. Bye. Bye. The weekly show with Jon Stewart is a Comedy Central podcast. It's produced by Paramount Audio and Busboy Productions.

Sponsor Announcer (73:41)

Paramount Podcasts.